MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135862234 · doi:10.2478/ausi-2020-0011

Improved balance in multiplayer online battle arena games

2020· article· en· W3135862234 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Universitatis Sapientiae Informatica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBattleComputer scienceBalance (ability)Big dataVirtuous circle and vicious circleMatching (statistics)Competition (biology)Sample (material)Artificial intelligenceComputer securityMultimediaData miningPsychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA) game is a popular type for its competition between players. Due to the high complexity, balance is the most important factor to secure a fair competitive environment. The common way to achieve dynamic data balance is by constant updates. The traditional method of finding unbalanced factors is mostly based on professional tournaments, a small minority of all the games and not real time. We develop an evaluation system for the DOTA2 based on big data with clustering analysis, neural networks, and a small-scale data collection as a sample. We then provide an ideal matching system based on the Elo rating system and an evaluation system to encourage players to try more different heroes for a diversified game environment and more data supply, which makes for a virtuous circle in the evaluation system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it